Ontology, or the Theory of BeingCoffey, P. (Peter)
Philosophy
Ontology, or the Theory of Being
Coffey, P. (Peter)
Ontology
rational analysis and fell outside the scope of “science,” or
“knowledge of the necessary and universal”. While it revealed the
forms or natures of things to sense, it remained itself impervious
to intellect, which grasped these natures and rendered them
intelligible only by divesting them of matter, by abstracting them
from matter. Reality is intelligible only in so far forth as it is
immaterial, either in fact or by abstraction. The human intellect,
being itself spiritual, is “receptive of forms without matter”.
But being itself allied with matter, its proper object is none
other than the natures or essences of corporeal things,
abstracted, however, from the matter in which they are actually
“immersed”. The only reason, therefore, why any intelligible form
or essence which, as abstract and universal, is “one” for
intellect, is nevertheless actually or potentially “manifold” in
its reality, is because it is allied with a material principle. It
is the latter that accounts for the numerical multiplication, in
actual reality, of any intelligible form or essence. If the latter
is material it can be actualized only by indefinitely repeated,
numerically or materially distinct, alliances with matter. It
cannot be actualized “_tota simul_,” or “once for all,” as it
were. It is, therefore, the material principle that not merely
reveals, but also constitutes, the individuation of such corporeal
forms or essences. Hence, too, the individual as such cannot be
adequately apprehended by intellect; for all intelligible
principles of reality are formal, whereas the individuating
principle is material.
On the other hand, if an intelligible essence or form be purely
spiritual, wholly unrelated to any indeterminate, material
principle, it must be “one” not alone conceptually or logically
but also really: it can exist only as “one”: it is of itself
individual: it can be differentiated from other spiritual essences
not materially but only formally, or, in other words, not
numerically but by a distinction which is at once individual and
specific. Two pure spirits cannot be “two” numerically and “one”
specifically, two for sense and one for intellect, as two men are:
if they are distinct at all they must be distinct for intellect,
_i.e._ they cannot be properly conceived as two members of the
same species.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account